Search Climate Insights Directory

The document discusses how the AGF's goal of mobilising US$100 billion annually by 2020 for climate-resilient development affects Latin America and the Caribbean, emphasizing the need for private sector frameworks, public sector catalysis of investment, and the protection of regional development and adaptation needs.

The document outlines ten reasons why jatropha is an unsustainable investment, noting that yields are often lower than claimed and the crop requires significant water and fertile land rather than thriving on marginal soils. It highlights negative impacts including the displacement of local communities, loss of biodiversity, and competition with food production. The text concludes that large-scale plantations are not economically viable and may increase greenhouse gas emissions due to land-use change.

The report criticizes the Copenhagen Accord for promoting private finance and market mechanisms over binding public commitments. It highlights how investment banks like Barclays and Santander, and companies like Shell and Lafarge, use carbon trading and REDD projects to generate profit or 'greenwash' their images. The authors advocate for a transition to climate justice, proposing a 'Robin Hood Tax' on financial transactions and the replacement of REDD with UN-wide negotiations to stop deforestation.

The document highlights the LAC region's specific climate finance needs, noting a high proportion of emissions from land-use change and adaptation requirements per person that exceed those of Africa and Asia. It emphasizes the need for public sector catalysis of private investment, particularly in forestry and agribusiness, and cautions that existing official development assistance patterns may leave the region with insufficient adaptation resources.

The document outlines the climate finance requirements for the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region, estimating annual mitigation needs between US$40–80 billion and adaptation needs between US$18–21 billion by 2030. It highlights the region's unique emissions profile, where land-use change is the primary driver of greenhouse gases, particularly in South America. The briefing argues that the AGF's recommendations for public-private partnerships and carbon-based revenue sources offer significant opportunities, provided that the region secures an equitable share of adaptation grants and establishes a robust framework for reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD+).

The document examines how the AGF's goal of mobilising US$100 billion annually can support SIDS, noting that while public grants are essential for adaptation, private capital can be leveraged for mitigation. It highlights risks such as the impact of international transport levies on trade and tourism, and the potential for non-LDC SIDS to be underserved by existing aid patterns.

The document examines REDD+ as a tool for developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation while fostering low-carbon development. It highlights that while over $4.5 billion had been pledged by 2012, significantly more funding is needed to meet estimated costs of $22 to $36 billion by 2015 to reduce global deforestation by 25%. The brief warns that REDD+ could increase the vulnerability of forest-dependent and indigenous peoples if land rights are not secured. It emphasizes that success requires long-term investment in monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, which may take up to a decade to establish, and the integration of forest policies into broader national development strategies.

The National Climate Change Policy Framework (NCCPF) seeks to protect Ghana's development progress from climate shocks while transitioning to a low-carbon growth path. The framework identifies critical vulnerabilities in the coastal zone, agriculture, and water resources, noting that the poorest populations and women are disproportionately affected. To address these, the NCCPF focuses on three main objectives: low carbon growth, effective adaptation, and social development, supported by seven systemic pillars including governance, finance, and capacity building. Key targets include generating 10% of energy from renewable resources by 2020 and implementing 'climate-proof' infrastructure.

The document examines REDD+ as a tool for mitigating climate change through the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. It argues that while REDD+ offers opportunities for low-carbon transitions, economic growth, and climate adaptation, its success depends on significant institutional investment and the mitigation of risks to forest-dependent communities.

The document critiques carbon trading as an unreliable mechanism that shifts the burden of mitigation to developing countries and benefits the Northern financial industry. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: for mitigation, it suggests global feed-in tariffs for renewables, energy efficiency standards, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the protection of Indigenous forest rights. For climate finance, it identifies a potential US$420 billion per year in new funding through a global Financial Transaction Tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The report critiques carbon trading as a 'risky, irresponsible and dangerous' tool that diverts attention from viable solutions. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: investing US$100 billion annually in renewable energy feed-in tariffs, transitioning to small-scale sustainable agriculture, protecting forests by addressing drivers like agrofuels, and implementing international industrial standards for the 'best available technologies'. For climate finance, it suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, issuing Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes, which could collectively provide at least US$420 billion annually for developing nations.

The report critiques carbon trading as a high-risk distraction that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emissions reductions and undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives, including a global feed-in tariff for renewable energy, a transition to small-scale sustainable agriculture, and the implementation of common industrial standards for best available technology. To fund these transitions and support developing countries, the report suggests generating at least US$420 billion per year through a global financial transaction tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The document critiques carbon trading as a 'dangerous obsession' that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emission reductions and fails to provide predictable financing for developing countries. It proposes a transition to a low-carbon economy through a 'Just Transition' framework, emphasizing the historical responsibility of rich nations. Key mitigation alternatives include a global feed-in tariff program for renewables, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the adoption of 'Best Available Techniques' in industry. For financing, the report suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, and issuing new Special Drawing Rights, estimating a potential for US$420 billion in annual new climate finance.

The document examines the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' (REDD) framework, highlighting how its implementation often prioritizes corporate profit and carbon market volatility over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it illustrates risks such as 'leakage', the displacement of forest-dependent populations, and the lack of genuine free, prior, and informed consent. The report concludes that REDD should be decoupled from carbon markets and instead focus on reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber while rewarding those who have historically conserved forests.

The report critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework, highlighting how its implementation often leads to the marginalization of indigenous communities and the privatization of forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it argues that REDD is being used by transnational energy companies to 'greenwash' their images while continuing fossil fuel extraction. The document warns that linking REDD to unstable carbon markets and allowing monoculture plantations may undermine actual emission reductions and exacerbate land conflicts.

The report critiques 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD), claiming it risks exacerbating inequality and privatizing forest resources. It highlights how energy companies use REDD for greenwashing while continuing fossil fuel extraction. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, and others, the document illustrates failures in community consultation, the risk of 'leakage' where deforestation simply shifts location, and the danger of including monoculture plantations in carbon accounting. It concludes that REDD should be decoupled from volatile carbon markets and instead based on public funding and the recognition of Indigenous land rights.

The report critiques the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD) mechanism, highlighting how it can exacerbate inequality and privatize forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it demonstrates that REDD projects often exclude indigenous communities from decision-making and serve as a 'greenwash' for fossil fuel and logging companies. The document warns that without reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber, REDD may lead to 'leakage,' where deforestation simply shifts to other areas, rendering the mechanism ineffective for global climate mitigation.

The report outlines how tropical forests can be transitioned from net carbon emitters to net sinks through the REDD+ framework. It details specific reforestation, restoration, and sustainable production forestry techniques, while emphasizing the necessity of 'additional' carbon benefits beyond business-as-usual baselines. The authors argue that achieving zero net emissions by 2030 requires a combination of reducing deforestation and scaling up sequestration activities, supported by international financial incentives and national policies that protect biodiversity and the rights of indigenous and local communities.

The research paper evaluates the trade-offs between carbon storage and timber extraction in Central American tropical forests using Net Present Value (NPV) analysis. It finds that while timber is more profitable on a face-value basis, the attractiveness of forest conservation is highly dependent on carbon pricing and discount rates. The author argues that incorporating co-benefits and sustainable forestry management is essential for making conservation economically competitive with timber harvesting.

The research evaluates the economic impact of forest area changes from 2000 to 2050, focusing on provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. Using a combination of market data, meta-analysis, and value transfer, the study finds that while managed forests may increase provisioning revenues, the loss of natural forests—particularly in tropical and boreal biomes—leads to significant welfare losses, primarily driven by the loss of carbon sequestration capacity. Brazil is projected to suffer the highest economic loss, potentially reaching 6% of its 2050 GDP.